Appellate Case: 24-7051 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 14, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-7051 (D.C. No. 6:23-CR-00156-RAW-1) JACOB GRAVES, a/k/a Jacob German, (E.D. Okla.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before MATHESON, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Jacob Graves was indicted on one count of being a felon in possession of a

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and one count of eluding a peace officer in

Indian country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13; Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 540A(A), (B). He

moved to dismiss the firearm offense on the ground that § 922(g)(1) is facially

unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The motion was denied. Mr. Graves

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 24-7051 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2025 Page: 2

pled guilty to both offenses. He was sentenced to 48 months in prison followed by three

years of supervised release.

On appeal, Mr. Graves renews his argument that § 922(g)(1) is facially

unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, citing New York State Rifle & Pistol

Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).

Our precedent forecloses this argument. We rejected a constitutional challenge to

§ 922(g)(1) in United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 (10th Cir. 2009). And while

Mr. Graves’s case was pending on appeal, we decided that McCane remains good law

after Bruen and Rahimi. See Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263, 1265-66 (10th Cir. 2025).

Given Vincent’s holding that McCane remains binding, we affirm the district

court’s judgment.

Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge

2